Live Animal Transport

Baroness Byford: asked Her Majesty's Government:
	Further to the Written Answer by Baroness Hayman on 28 March (WA 41) concerning their policy towards, and monitoring of, the transport of live animals, whether:
	(a) there is a distinction between monitoring and policy;
	(b) what is their policy towards monitoring;
	(c) what is the number of people employed in the Animal Welfare Division on policy duties; and
	(d) whether the number of people employed in both their monitoring and policy units has changed since 1997.

Baroness Hayman: (a) Policy includes negotiating, developing and implementing improved rules on welfare during transport in the European Union and in domestic legislation. A dedicated team in Animal Welfare Division is responsible for the monitoring of the operation and enforcementof these rules. They work in close liaison.
	(b) Monitoring of enforcement and compliance is an important part of the Government's twin-track policy of strict enforcement while encouraging the development of improved rules on a EU-wide basis. Monitoring of the rules on welfare during transport is best carried out by the State Veterinary Service and local authorities, which have the day to day responsibility for enforcement. The operations team in Animal Welfare Division maintains the database on transporter authorisations, checks that all new routes can comply with the law and arranges non-discriminatory checks on animals in co-operation with other member states.
	(c) Animal Welfare Division is responsible for animal welfare on farm, during transport, at markets and at slaughter. There are currently 34.6 staff employed on policy duties in these areas.
	(d) The number of staff in Animal Welfare Division has increased by 4.6 persons to 42.6 since 1997; six are employed on operational duties related to animal welfare during transport. An Enforcement Liaison Officer has been appointed to develop day to day working relations between the department and local authorities, which have primary responsibility for enforcement.

Foot and Mouth Disease

Baroness Byford: asked Her Majesty's Government:
	Further to the Statement by the Baroness Hayman on 9 April (H.L. Deb., col. 1013), how many animals, species by species, are awaiting slaughter under the livestock animal welfare disposal scheme.

Baroness Hayman: As at close on 9/5/01 the cumulative totals of animals by species which have been registered, slaughtered, withdrawn, not presented or which remain outstanding under the Livestock Welfare (Disposal) Scheme are as follows:
	
		
			 Species Animals registered Animals slaughtered Registered animals withdrawn Animals not presented Registered animals outstanding etc 
			   
			 Sheep 1,073,992 525,800 64,078 124,543 359,571 
			 Pigs 388,221 190,902 35,782 64,271 97,266 
			 Cattle 138,925 52,843 7,137 8,456 70,489 
			 Deer/Goats/  Llamas 4,549 728 1 105 3,715 
			 Total 1,605,687 770,273 106,998 197,375 531,041 
		
	
	A daily report of progress under this scheme is available in the Library of the House.

Foot and Mouth Disease

Baroness Byford: asked Her Majesty's Government:
	Whether animals on foot and mouth contiguous farms are automatically blood tested; and how many of these contiguous farms were found to be developing the disease.

Baroness Hayman: As the Government's slaughter policy on contiguous premises does not depend on the identification of infection on these premises, susceptible animals on such farms are not automatically tested for foot and mouth disease.

Foot and Mouth Disease

Baroness Byford: asked Her Majesty's Government:
	How they reconcile the statement by Baroness Hayman on 3 May (H.L. Deb., col. 1957) that "there is no longer any backlog of animals awaiting disposal anywhere in Great Britain" with the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food daily situation report on the 4 May which stated that as of 19.00 on the 3 May there were some 38,000 animals awaiting disposal.

Baroness Hayman: Reports from the Regional Operations Centres at 19.00 on 3 May indicated that some 13,110 carcasses were awaiting disposal. However, due to the time lag between disposal and the information being reported and entered onto the Ministry database, the number of carcasses centrally recorded as awaiting disposal at 19.00 on 3 May was 38,000.

Foot and Mouth Disease

Baroness Byford: asked Her Majesty's Government:
	Further to the statement by Baroness Hayman on 3 May (H.L. Deb., col. 1957) that "there are small numbers of animals awaiting slaughter", whether they consider the figure of 112,000 animals awaiting slaughter, given in the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food daily situation report of 4 May represents a "small number".

Baroness Hayman: Reports from the Regional Operations Centres in Great Britain at 19.00 on 3 May indicated that some 10,250 animals were awaiting slaughter. However, due to the time lag between slaughter and the information being reported and entered onto the Ministry database, the number of animals centrally recorded as awaiting slaughter at 19.00 on 3 May was 112,000.

Foot and Mouth Disease

The Duke of Montrose: asked Her Majesty's Government:
	How they gauge the relative susceptibility of different animal species to type O foot and mouth disease.

Baroness Hayman: We refer the noble Lord to the reply given to him on 3 May, (H.L. Deb., col. WA 317).

Foot and Mouth Disease

Lord Glentoran: asked Her Majesty's Government:
	Whether the various types of compensation to farmers for foot and mouth disease in Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland will be the same as in England.

Baroness Hayman: Compensation for all animals slaughtered as a result of the foot and mouth disease outbreak is paid at the full market value of the animal immediately before slaughter; this is the case in England, Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland. Standard tariffs of compensation were introduced in GB to speed up the payments of compensation.
	The Livestock Welfare (Disposal) Scheme (LWDS) is available to farmers whose animals face welfare difficulties as a result of movement restrictions. Animals taken under this scheme do not qualify for compensation. Instead a standard rate of payment is made to farmers to help resolve an identified welfare problem. These payments, which vary by species and type of animal, are not a reflection of the commercial or market value of the animal. The scheme is operated by the Intervention Board on behalf of the Ministry, throughout GB. The Department of Agriculture and Rural Development for Northern Ireland ran a limited pig welfare disposal scheme, under which payments were the same as those for pigs slaughtered under the LWDS. LWDS payments have been set at revised levels for animals collected as of 30 April.

Foot and Mouth Disease

The Countess of Mar: asked Her Majesty's Government:
	Why, early in March, scientists at Pirbright refused the offer of the United States Department of Agriculture to supply field-testing kits based on the amplification of foot and mouth virus RNA by a real-time polymerase chain reaction; and whether they will reconsider their decision.

Baroness Hayman: At no time did Pirbright scientists refuse the offer of field-testing kits. The original request was in fact made for Pirbright to provide the opportunity for field trials of unvalidated technology. Because of the huge pressure of diagnostic work at that time, Pirbright scientists were unable to carry out the comparative testing with the USA equipment which would have been required to validate the test, necessary before using on UK farms. An offer was made for one scientist from the USA to bring the equipment to Pirbright to carry out some comparative testing, but this was not taken up.

Foot and Mouth Disease

The Countess of Mar: asked Her Majesty's Government:
	What is the position of farmers who against current Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food advice turn their cattle out to grass because they have exhausted their supplies of fodder and bedding and are unable to purchase further supplies, if those cattle succumb to foot and mouth disease.

Baroness Hayman: This issue raises a number of complex legal issues and any instances of these sort will be considered on a case by case basis.

Foot and Mouth Disease

Lord Inglewood: asked Her Majesty's Government:
	What has been the average time in Cumbria between notification and veterinary confirmation, veterinary confirmation and slaughter, and slaughter and disposal in each of the weeks of the current foot and mouth crisis.

Baroness Hayman: Information on average times during the early stages of the crisis is still being compiled and validated. This is particularly true of the times from report to confirmation. The key information for fighting the disease is the time from report to slaughter. The table below details the requested statistics (in hours).
	
		
			 Week commencing Report to confirmation Confirmation to slaughter Report to slaughter Slaughter to disposal 
			 4 March 2001 44 48 92 67 
			 11 March 2001 43 45 88 71 
			 18 March 2001 21 32 53 85 
			 25 March 2001 25 41 66 92 
			 1 April 2001 19 29 48 89 
			 8 April 2001 7 20 27 59 
			 15 April 2001 4 19 24 25 
			 22 April 2001 10 17 26 45 
			 29 April 2001 7 14 21 16 
		
	
	Source: MAFF Disease Control System database--figures are subject to revision as more data become available.

Foot and Mouth Disease

Lord Boston of Faversham: asked Her Majesty's Government:
	Whether they will set out the details of A, B, C and D notices served in connection with the foot and mouth disease outbreak, specifying the restrictions which apply to each of these notices and the implications for owners of land to which these notices apply.

Baroness Hayman: The details of Form A, B, C and D notices are summarised below. Full details are set out in the Foot and Mouth Disease Order 1983 (SI 1983/1950) and on the MAFF website. The restrictions which apply in each are subject to amendment from time to time (for example when additional requirements are specified in orders declaring an infected area or when additional requirements are associated with movement schemes).
	Any premises where an affected or suspected animal is found, or where it is suspected that foot and mouth exists, will be served with a Form A Notice, declaring it to be an infected place.
	The Form B notification withdraws the restrictions imposed by the Form A procedures.
	Where a veterinary inspector suspects that an animal or carcass is affected with foot and mouth he will sign a Form C certificate.
	Where an inspector has reasonable grounds for suspecting that an animal has been exposed to infection, he will serve a Form D Notice on the occupier of the premises on which the animal is located or on the owner or person in charge of that animal.

Foot and Mouth Disease

Lord Marlesford: asked Her Majesty's Government:
	In which areas the 24-hour slaughter deadline is currently being met; and in which areas the further 24-hour carcass disposal policy is being met.

Baroness Hayman: In many cases all animals on infected premises are slaughtered within 24 hours of the first report of the disease. Cases not completed within 24 hours are being completed shortly afterwards.
	
		
			 Cases reported by owner on % achievement against target 
			 30 April 67 
			 29 April 80 
			 28 April 50 
			 27 April 82 
			 26 April 100 
			 25 April 38 
			 24 April 63 
		
	
	Figures for slaughter and disposal are available and updated daily on the MAFF website. http://www.maff.gov.uk/.
	Although at present there is no explicit 24-hour carcass disposal policy, carcasses are disposed of as rapidly as possible, subject to the availability of disposal methods. Indeed disposal has become continually more rapid throughout the outbreak.

Foot and Mouth Disease

Lord Swinfen: asked Her Majesty's Government:
	What were the serology results in the foot and mouth outbreaks in Welshpool Market.

Baroness Hayman: To provide a summary of the serology results for animals that passed through Welshpool Market, we would need to check individual tracing records held at a number of different Animal Health Offices. This could only be achieved at disproportionate cost.

Foot and Mouth Disease

Baroness Miller of Hendon: asked Her Majesty's Government:
	What fresh advice, if any, was given by the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food officials or veterinarians to the Royal Parks Agency about the risk of foot and mouth disease to deer in London's Royal Parks in the fortnight before the parks were re-opened on the 11 April.

Baroness Hayman: Most dealings with Royal Parks are a matter for my right honourable friend, the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport (Mr Chris Smith). However on 9 April 2001 the Ministry published on its website (http://www.maff.gov.uk/) Veterinary Risk Assessment No. 9 entitled What is the risk of causing new outbreaks of FMD if deer parks are open to the public.

Foot and Mouth Disease

Lord Inglewood: asked Her Majesty's Government:
	What is the basis of valuation used by the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food when, as part of subsequent disinfection of a farm infected with foot and mouth disease, they order buildings or fixtures to be removed or modified; and what is its legal basis; and
	What form of appeal there is when the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food orders the removal or modification of a building as part of the disinfection of a farm infected with foot and mouth; and what are the procedures and legal basis for such an appeal.

Baroness Hayman: The Ministry bears the costs of the cleansing and disinfecting process. Where repairs are required before satisfactory cleansing and disinfection can be achieved, the costs of these repairs are borne by the farmer.
	The Ministry cannot compel farmers to comply with the requirement to carry out repairs. But if they do not, their premises (or part of their premises) would have to be left under Form A restrictions until the residual virus had died. This could take up to a year or even longer.
	Any farmer who does not wish to carry out repairs to his premises should contact the local divisional veterinary manager.

Foot and Mouth Disease

Lord Vivian: asked Her Majesty's Government:
	Why the latest case of foot and mouth disease at Great Wigborough in Essex, which involved the slaughter of animals, was not included in the list of cases for the period from Friday 27 to Sunday 29 April, reported by constituency under the new daily reporting system announced in Parliament by the Minister of Agriculture on 26 April; and whether they will give full details of this case.

Baroness Hayman: The case mentioned does not appear on the list of confirmed cases published in the MAFF foot and mouth website. Our policy, based on legal advice, is to release details of infected premises as this information is necessary for the control of foot and mouth. For reasons of data protection and confidentiality we only release information on other premises affected by the outbreak to organisations that require it for the purpose of safeguarding public health and for co-ordinating rural recovery programmes, unless the individual concerned has given written consent.

Foot and Mouth Disease

Baroness Mallalieu: asked Her Majesty's Government:
	When they will make arrangements for the virological scientist, Colin G Fink, to be supplied with fixed (non infectious) virus or extracted nucleic acid (RNA) from the foot and mouth virus currently causing the infection so that he may develop a rapid specific viral assay, following the requests made and apparent agreement to do so given by Lindsay Harris of the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food and Dr Paul Kitching, Head of the Exotic Disease Reference Laboratory at Pirbright in meetings held on 24 April.

Baroness Hayman: This subject is a complex matter, dealing with a major notifiable disease which spreads rapidly. The request referred to raises important issues of biosecurity and disease control and is under discussion. No agreement to this request was given or implied by any civil servant of the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food. The official in question offered to put Colin G Fink in contact with the relevant experts, which was done.

Foot and Mouth Disease

Lord Hoyle: asked Her Majesty's Government:
	Whether they will place a copy of the reply by the Chief Veterinary Officer to Cuba's offer of veterinary assistance in relation to the foot and mouth outbreak in the Library of the House.

Baroness Hayman: A copy of the letter will be made available to the Library of the House as requested.

Foot and Mouth Disease

The Earl of Caithness: asked Her Majesty's Government:
	Whether they received up-to-date technology from New Zealand to help them handle a foot and mouth outbreak; if so, when; and whether such technology was tested when it arrived.

Baroness Hayman: The Ministry has been contracted partners with New Zealand to the EpiMAN project since 1996. EpiMAN is a decision support system which combines epidemiological knowledge of foot and mouth disease with computer information processing techniques. An updated version of the system was obtained and installed on Monday 26 February 2001. This system has been developed over a number of years using the experience from previous outbreaks. Therefore no further evaluation was required.

Foot and Mouth Disease

The Earl of Caithness: asked Her Majesty's Government:
	What help they have asked for from New Zealand to handle the foot and mouth outbreak; and what assistance has been given.

Baroness Hayman: There is an agreement between the UK, New Zealand, Canada, Australia and the USA for the exchange of veterinary resources in the event of a foot and mouth disease epidemic. Therefore government veterinary staff from New Zealand and these other countries have assisted in the control and investigation of the epidemic. In addition, approximately 20 private veterinarian surgeons from New Zealand have volunteered and are assisting in the control of the disease.

Foot and Mouth Disease

The Earl of Caithness: asked Her Majesty's Government:
	Whether they consider that Dumfries and Galloway has been as hard hit by foot and mouth disease as Cumbria; and, if it has, why was it not referred to in the Statement by the Baroness Hayman on 26 April.

Baroness Hayman: The Government and, in Scotland, the Scottish Executive will work to identify ways of assisting the recovery of the farming sector. Particular attention will be given to those areas where the incidence of foot and mouth disease has been highest, namely Cumbria (681 cases*), Dumfries and Galloway (173* cases) and Devon (163 cases*).
	*cases at 7 May 2001.

Foot and Mouth Disease

The Earl of Caithness: asked Her Majesty's Government:
	With regard to the foot and mouth outbreak, how they reconcile the phrase used by the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food on 26 April "as the disease is brought under control" with his remark on 13 March on BBC Radio 4, "I am certain that we have it under control".

Baroness Hayman: From the outset we have had a range of control measures in place. That these have been effective in controlling the disease is shown by the rapid decline in the number of confirmed cases.

Foot and Mouth Disease

The Earl of Caithness: asked Her Majesty's Government:
	Further to the Written Answer by Baroness Hayman on 2 May (WA 270), when the policy of disinfecting stock before burning was announced; how it was disseminated to farmers; and what checks have been made to ensure that all stock were sprayed before being burned; and
	Further to the Written Answer by Baroness Hayman on 2 May (WA 270), whether there is an increased risk of disease or pollutants being spread by the burning of sprayed as opposed to unsprayed stock.

Baroness Hayman: Carcasses are sprayed with an approved disinfectant before burning, which destroys any virus on the outside of the animal and so reduces the risk of any infection spreading at this stage. This is an established policy, contained in the standing instructions to the field State Veterinary Service. The procedure of spraying carcasses has not been specifically publicised to farmers. Disinfection of carcasses is the responsibility of my department. The procedure is supervised at all times by an appropriate person.
	Expert advice from the Environment Agency is that there is no difference in air pollution between burning sprayed and unsprayed carcasses.

Foot and Mouth Disease

The Earl of Caithness: asked Her Majesty's Government:
	Further to the Written Answer by Baroness Hayman on 2 May (WA 270), when the research into the effects of quicklime on carcasses was done; and by whom.

Baroness Hayman: The addition of quicklime to carcasses is an historical practice and was done for the purpose of killing organisms such as anthrax spores. It is not necessary in this situation, as the foot and mouth virus is killed by the natural decomposition process. No recent research into the effects of lime on carcasses has been undertaken.

Veterinary Laboratories Agency

Baroness Billingham: asked Her Majesty's Government:
	What targets have they set the Veterinary Laboratories Agency for 2001-02

Baroness Hayman: The Veterinary Laboratories Agency has been set the following performance targets for 2001-02. Efficiency
	To achieve procurement savings of £400k.
	Set a baseline (first six months) and improve (second six months) the proportion of overheads against turnover. Service Delivery
	To achieve 85 per cent of ROAME R&D milestones.
	To deliver 92 per cent of export tests to published turnaround times.
	Draw up a numerical transparent customer satisfaction system in agreement with customers. Service Quality
	To achieve a satisfactory outcome of VLA's independent scientific audit.
	Achieve ISO9000 certification for biotechnology.
	Achieve UKAS accreditation for laboratory testing at Lasswade.
	To achieve UKAS accreditation for mycoplasma serology, culture and identification. Financial Control
	To recover the full economic cost (before exceptional items and calculated in accordance with resource accounting principles) of its services.
	To achieve an overall income of at least £56.3 million from MAFF, including the work won in open competition.

Pesticides Safety Directorate

Baroness Billingham: asked Her Majesty's Government:
	What targets they have set the Pesticides Safety Directorate for 2001-02.

Baroness Hayman: The Pesticides Safety Directorate has been set the following performance targets for 2001-02. Service Quality
	To deliver the throughput of applications and processing times set out in the plan.
	To deliver high quality policy advice to Ministers and positively respond to their policy objectives.
	To deliver high quality scientific work.
	To implement a quality scheme: the objective will be to provide a framework that enables an improvement in quality, efficiency and consistency (verified by customer satisfaction results). Efficiency
	To achieve efficiency savings of 2 per cent in administration costs. Financial Control
	To recover from industry and Government the full economic cost (calculated according to resource principles) of its services.
	
		Plan Table 1. New Substances and Reviews
		
			 Application type Planned receipts Planned completions Processing time  (weeks) 
			 New Active Substances 
			 Sift 8 8 6 
			 Evaluation--full 8 7 48 
			 --resubmission 4 4 48 
			 Post Annex 1 Approvals 30 30 -- 
			 Reviews--UK 
			 UK anticholinesterase  review programme -- 15 -- 
			 --full reviews 
			 Other UK review activity 3 9 -- 
			 UK review regulatory  notices -- 26 -- 
			 Reviews--EC 
			 EU rapporteur reviews -- -- -- 
			  
			 Total 53 99 (1)90% 
		
	
	(1)The figures for new substances and reviews are based on work in hand and forecasts from industry and the Commission.
	
		Table 2. Technical Secretariat
		
			 Application type Planned receipts Planned completions Processing time (weeks) 
			 Normal 165 180 35 
			 Associated Fast-Normals 55 60 35 
			 Departmental Normal 5 5 45 
			 Departmental  Experimental Approval 2 2 45 
			 Departmental Off Label 1 1 45 
			 Assessed Experimental  Approval 2 2 20 
			 Extrapolated  Experimental Approval 2 2 10 
			 Emergency Off Label 25 25 10 
			 Non-emergency Off Label 40 40 30 
			 Fast 220 220 10 
			 Parallel imports 50 50 10 
			 Administrative Fast 650 650 4 
			 Administrative  Experimental 100 100 1 
			 Simplified own-use  parallel 10 10 2 
			 Mutual recognition 3 3 20 
			  
			 Total 1,330 1,350 -- 
			 Total (Tables 1 & 2) 1,383 1,449 (1)90% 
		
	
	(1) Overall targets--90 per cent of applications with a stated processing time must be completed within that time.

Veterinary Medicines Directorate

Baroness Billingham: asked Her Majesty's Government:
	What targets they have set the Veterinary Medicines Directorate for 2001-02.

Baroness Hayman: The Veterinary Medicines Directorate has been set the following performance targets for 2001-02. Safety and Quality:
	To provide high quality scientific assessment work.
	To provide high quality policy advice to Ministers.
	To comply with the timetables for entering suspected adverse reactions (SAR) reports set out in the plan and to report to the Veterinary Products Committee each quarter reviewing trends in SAR reports and identifying areas requiring evaluation.
	Enter human reports onto the database within two working days.
	Enter serious animal reports onto the database within two working days.
	Enter non-serious animal reports onto the database within 10 working days.
	To meet, in full, the requirements of the National Residues Surveillance Plans.
	Standards of Service.
	To comply with the timetables for handling applications under the centralised, decentralised and UK procedures set out in the plan. Centralised Procedures:
	All assessments (including maximum residues limits) to be submitted within timetables agreed with the European Medicines Evaluation Agency. Decentralised Procedures:
	All authorisations to be determined within the regulatory timetables.
	UK Procedures:
	93 per cent of new marketing authorisations to be determined or referred to the Veterinary Products Committee within 120 clock days; all to be determined within 210 clock days.
	Type 1 variations
	Average time to complete first assessment to be 25 clock days.
	Average time to sign off assessment to be 50 clock days.
	99 per cent of applications to be signed off by 60 clock days.
	Type 2 variations
	Average time to complete first assessment to be 55 clock days.
	Average time to sign of assessment to be 110 clock days.
	99 per cent of applications to be signed off by 120 clock days.
	Old variations.
	Average time to complete first assessment to be 70 clock days.
	Average time to sign off assessment to be 140 clock days.
	99 per cent of applications to be signed off by 150 clock days.
	Renewals
	Average time to complete first assessment to be 80 clock days.
	Average time to sign off assessment to be 165 clock days.
	99 per cent of applications to be signed off by 180 clock days. Efficiency:
	To continue to collect data for 2001-02 with a view to establishing a three year rolling efficiency index. To establish a numerical baseline for timeliness of delivery from the results of the customer satisfaction surveys. Financial Control:
	To recover from industry and government the full economic cost taken as a whole of its main business activities of licensing and surveillance, policy work and residue monitoring without any cross subsidy between businesses.

Central Science Laboratory

Baroness Billingham: asked Her Majesty's Government:
	What targets they have set the Central Science Laboratory for 2001-02.

Baroness Hayman: The Central Science Laboratory has been set the following performance targets for 2001-02. Financial Control:
	To recover the full economic costs of operation on a resource accounting basis, recognising the normal costs of operation. Efficiency:
	To deliver the efficiency targets set out in the Business Plan.
	Achieve a ratio of 79:21 or better of direct fee-earning staff in relation to total overhead staff.
	Achieve a minimum of £73k income per fee earner.
	Achieve a minimum of £21k non-MAFF income per fee earner. Quality and Service Delivery:
	To achieve a minimum of 85 per cent of project milestones in MAFF commissioned projects.
	To achieve a mean score of 3.7 on a scale of 0 to 5 for the assessment of customer satisfaction using the revised methodology.
	To implement a new financial system by March 2002.
	To manage the agency in an effective manner.

Millennium Dome: Sale

Baroness Noakes: asked Her Majesty's Government:
	Further to the Written Answer by Lord Falconer of Thoroton on 26 April (WA 232), how many of the informal expressions of interest for the Dome include the retention of the Dome structure.

Lord Falconer of Thoroton: The vast majority.